Boeing batteries are overheating. Tesla batteries are not overheating. There are sufficiently similar requirements on their performance and safety that any layman can conclude there is something wrong with Boeings design.
The problem here is that the engineers at Boeing are not clowns.
The problem here is that you think that is what is being alleged. It isn't: an enormous and old company like Boeing can have an entrenched culture that leads to decisions being made that do not follow the advice of the engineers. What makes Tesla and SpaceX competitive is not their technical knowledge: it's the fact that they can use that knowledge effectively.
NASA's engineers aren't clowns either, yet their shuttles exploded, unnecessarily. The Feynman committee tore their procedures, not their engineering ability, to shreds.
It was an engineer, Roger Boisjoly, who repeatedly warned about the safety of the o-rings, particularly in low temperatures. The decision to launch the shuttle came from management not the engineers.
Feynman was on the accident investigation committee, and was critical to exposing crucial facts and making sure they made it into the report. Feynman even wrote an additional report to add to the committee's work. http://www.ralentz.com/old/space/feynman-report.html
Bolsjoy's ordeal is now in the curriculum of many engineering ethics courses.
Thus decisively proving the parent's point. Boeing might have the most talented engineers in the world, but if management ignores them then all their degrees and seriousness doesn't mean jack.
Elon's comments have some validity, but there is a bit of grandstanding going on. Thermal runaway with lion batteries isn't a random event. It's very predictable and very preventable. 99% of lion batteries in use have a built in thermosensor so that they can charge correctly without exploding---because any lion battery will explode if charged too fast or if it goes into overvoltage.
So since all of the variables to prevent thermal runaway are know, it should make no difference how closely together they are placed. However in this case there is either a problem with the charging software---which isn't adequately performing and preventing the condition that is causing the batteries to overheat OR the batteries themselves (although in good working order) are not performing within the correct performance envelope that the software has been developed to use.
Screaming that placing the cells too close together is bogus. You laptop has cells placed equally close together as do all Tesla vehicles---and they can burn and explode just like the ones on the 787---yet that is a very rare occurrence. Because all of the charging parameters are known. Same applies to the Boeing batteries, but something is not performing according to plan.
In space, the parameters are completely different. Fire is the absolute worst case scenario in space and everything that can be done to mitigate the chance of one will be taken. Which is why the batteries on the SpaceX vehicles are spaced out they way they are. Yes, they know all of the parameters for the batteries, but the logistics of changing a battery in space are much different than those of an aircraft.
Boeing's fault in all of this is that something is not performing according to spec---and they knew that due to all of the battery swaps the Japanese airlines were doing. At that point they should have grounded and figured out the problem. But past Elon, others have already stepped up and criticized Boeings move to lions in the first place. Nickel cadmium batteries would have weighed 40 pounds more and have barely 1/1000th of a chance of thermal runaway that lithium ion batteries do. They don't charge as fast, but they are still well within the performance envelope needed by the 787.
In the specific context of engineering, the only thing I have ever heard about Boeing's "entrenched culture" is that they are obsessed with safety. A Boeing airliner is a modern miracle of overengineering.
Bingo - the engineers may have said one thing, and the project manager/board of arbitrary decisions may have said "my cousin makes batteries" or "fewer cells will mean easier part replacement".
Engineering is only part of making an engineered product.
NASA's engineers aren't clowns either, yet their shuttles exploded, unnecessarily. The Feynman committee tore their procedures, not their engineering ability, to shreds.